Sunita Singla vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. The primary issue was the permissibility of a second Show Cause Notice for the same cause of action. The petitioner relied on Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017, to argue against parallel proceedings. Crucially, the Revenue did not dispute the petitioner's assertion that the notice was a second one for the same matter and conceded that it could not be sustained in law. Based on this concession and the principle against parallel proceedings, the Court found the second Show Cause Notice to be legally unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that a second Show Cause Notice for the same subject matter, when prior proceedings are already underway, is impermissible and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2024.
Facts
The petitioner, Sunita Singla, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2024. The petitioner contended that this notice was a second Show Cause Notice issued for the same subject matter for which prior proceedings had already been initiated. The petitioner relied on Section 6(2)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arguing that parallel proceedings are impermissible. The respondents-Revenue, upon instructions, did not dispute that the impugned notice was indeed a second Show Cause Notice for the same cause of action against the petitioner. The Revenue conceded that the second notice could not be sustained in law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the issuance of a second Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2024, in respect of the same subject matter for which prior proceedings were initiated, is legally permissible under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of a second Show Cause Notice for the same cause of action is impermissible, citing Section 6(2)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prohibits parallel proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The respondents-Revenue, acknowledging that the impugned notice was a second Show Cause Notice for the same cause of action, conceded that it could not be sustained in law.
Sections Cited
Section 6(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-23966-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9th September, 2026. SUNITA SINGLA
.…...Petitioner(s) V/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondents-revenue.
****
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has challenged the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) on the ground that it constitutes a second Show Cause Notice issued in respect of the very subject matter for which proceedings had already been initiated against him earlier.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn an analogy of the provision of Section 6(2)(b) contained in the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to submit that initiation of parallel proceedings would be legally impermissible.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Revenue, upon instructions received, does not dispute th
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.